In its final days, Bangladesh’s Interim Government inked a curious trade agreement with the United States. The deal’s origination had been largely shrouded in secrecy, with details of the tradeoffs made public only after it was signed.
The headlines have not been favourable. Described as “problematic”, a “selling out” and, colorfully, “economic hari-kari”, it is a deal which has befuddled commentators for undercutting the country, its farmers, workers, and future generations.
To most, it appears that an interim and unelected government, just days before a general election, has made an eleventh-hour trade deal binding the country for years to come and restricting its growth. It’s the sort of deal which reeks of backroom agreements and tradeoffs, raising the spectre of who has privately profited as a result.
While Bangladesh agreed to reduce custom duties on nearly 7,000 US products, it received reductions on just 1,600. The country also agreed to bar itself from entering any agreements with “non-market economies” (read China or Russia) or risk the reimposition of a 37% reciprocal tariff. Such a move not only reduces the country’s ability to establish favorable trading conditions but forces the country to rely on US products sold to it at a higher-than-market rate.
The deal also restricts Bangladesh’s authority to test agricultural and biotechnology products, meaning they cannot chemically treat cotton or restrict genetically modified food, posing threats to the country’s ecology and public health. Incredibly, the agreement also included the mandatory purchase of almost $20 billion in liquefied natural gas, soybeans and other agricultural products as well as 14 Boeing aircraft.
That Boeing deal deserves a special layer of scrutiny given how indicative it is of where the country’s priorities have been subsumed by the slippery relationships between the Interim Government and business interests.
The deal began as the national flag carrier, Biman Bangladesh Airlines, sought to expand its fleet. Initial reports saw the company in advanced discussions with Airbus, with Boeing tendering a secondary offer. Then, after the July Revolution and Trump’s victory, Binman’s attention suddenly shifted towards Boeing. At the same time, Bashir Uddin – founder of the conglomerate Akij-Bashir Group – was made an adviser to the Interim Government’s Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism and then appointed as chairman to Binman’s board. The move has been called out as a clear conflict of interest and put Uddin in a position where he would effectively regulate himself.
As a potential deal with Boeing progressed, the absence of clarity so-worried Airbus that its executive vice president, Wouter van Wersch, made a trip to Dhaka. He told reporters that the Interim Government ought to consider the offers on the merits of the “commercial, technical and capacity-building value” and not “politics”. Officials from France, Germany, and the UK even pushed the government to consider Airbus’s proposal.
No matter, Uddin personally chaired the meeting approving the purchase of the aircraft which was quickly followed by the appointment of three other board members with strong links to the Interim Government. As noted by the Daily Star, these appointments and the blatant mixing of public duty and private profit are deeply puzzling for a technocratic interim government known for its disdain of “unchecked cronyism”.
It is the sort of shadowy, backroom dealing where private and public interests become indistinguishable that became a staple of the Interim Government’s final days in power.
In July, Bangladesh Bank Governor Ahsan Mansur announced that the Bangladesh Bank would move quickly to verify applicants for digital banks. Despite 13 applications sent in November, the central bank failed to move forward with a decision. Then, just days after the February elections, as the new government was still taking shape, Mansur convened a meeting in an alleged attempt to award licences for digital banks, a move described as “hasty”.
Leaders of the Bangladesh Bank Officers’ Welfare Council quickly raised objections, noting that the emergency board meeting raised serious questions about the transparency and neutrality of the central bank’s operations given that Mansur had previously served as chairman of one of the banks seeking a license.
In all, these examples reveal an interim government led by advisers and decision-makers who have appeared to play fast and loose with the rules in the waning hours of their rule, calling into question whether officials adequately followed best practices across their tenure. If a temporary government, just days away from being replaced, was willing to trade away the future of the country’s economic security, the public deserves to know what other unknown tradeoffs were made and who exactly stood to benefit?
